[Merged] Immortality & Bayesian Statistics

[jt512]

I have no idea, and yet it remains obvious to me in the light of my understanding that time had its beginning in the Big Bang.

Perhaps you'll explain why you disagree and at least bring something worthy of discussion into this sad ongoing tragedy of a thread.

Forget the question about cardinality. You were using "finite" in a different sense than I am used to.

But, as I understand it (which is not well), not all current theories of cosmology consider the Big Bang as the beginning of time.

 

[abaddon]

Not to mention, unless Mr. Savage truly is postulating some sort of "consciousness" ("soul"?) that does not depend upon a human brain for emergence, that is, that is not an emergent property of a human brain, he has had, at most, 250,000 years for Homo sapiens to have demonstrated this "immortality", and will have, as a generous estimate, another 9-10 million years before H. sap. goes extinct. Hardly "forever"...

You touch upon an interesting question. Right now there are some 7 billion individuals. Where were they when humankind was meekly forming? Where will they go after humankind disappears? What of the billions of individuals who existed throughout the paltry 300,000 years of humankinds existence? Where does one draw the line between modern humankind and proto humans, if you will? Did they have consciousness?

Something tells me Jabba has not thought all of this through to it's inevitable conclusions.

 

[Slowvehicle]

You touch upon an interesting question. Right now there are some 7 billion individuals. Where were they when humankind was meekly forming? Where will they go after humankind disappears? What of the billions of individuals who existed throughout the paltry 300,000 years of humankinds existence? Where does one draw the line between modern humankind and proto humans, if you will? Did they have consciousness?

Something tells me Jabba has not thought all of this through to it's inevitable conclusions.

The Pharaoh, in his impeccable wisdom (may he post forever!) also addressed the issue of numbers of souls:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9687597#post9687597

The change in the number of souls needed, for me, sounds the death-knell for re-incarnation; the limited amount of time available, for me, sounds the death-knell for immortality.

I like your specific question about proto-humans: did the "soul" (or whatever Mr. Savage wants to try to call the "immortal sequential consciousness" wake up after one transformation and realize it was now human?

 

[carlitos]

Also, if cockroaches, mosquitoes and fruit flies have souls, the whole eternity thing becomes less attractive.

 

[Jabba]

... Why do you consistently fixate on small, irrelevant distractions and avoid the major flaws in your own arguments?

Squeegee,
- I thought that I was focusing on what you believe are my flaws.

 

[Akhenaten]

... Why do you consistently fixate on small, irrelevant distractions and avoid the major flaws in your own arguments?

Squeegee,
- I thought that I was focusing on what you believe are my flaws.

The major flaw in the defence of your argument appears to be that you are blissfully unaware of the major flaw in your argument.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Squeegee,
- I thought that I was focusing on what you believe are my flaws.

The major flaw in this particular strand of your argument is that no matter how big a number gets, you can never, ever count up to infinity. Infinity is something else entirely. That's what you need to address.

 

[Jabba]

The major flaw in this particular strand of your argument is that no matter how big a number gets, you can never, ever count up to infinity. Infinity is something else entirely. That's what you need to address.

Squeegee,
- But, that's what I'm trying to address. Ask jt512 about it. I don't think it's just a tremendous number -- I think it is infinite.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Squeegee,
- But, that's what I'm trying to address. Ask jt512 about it. I don't think it's just a tremendous number -- I think it is infinite.

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, that is what I would like you to address.

Why do you think a large number multiplied by a large number yields an "infinite" number"?

...not to mention the other problems that have been raised, even in the last page or so...

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Squeegee,
- But, that's what I'm trying to address. Ask jt512 about it. I don't think it's just a tremendous number -- I think it is infinite.

Yes, we know you do. And people have explained to you why you're wrong. If you want to establish that you're right, you'll have to address some of those explanations.

 

[carlitos]

Squeegee,
- But, that's what I'm trying to address. Ask jt512 about it. I don't think it's just a tremendous number -- I think it is infinite.

Why?

 

[Jabba]

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, that is what I would like you to address.

Why do you think a large number multiplied by a large number yields an "infinite" number"?

...not to mention the other problems that have been raised, even in the last page or so...

Slowvehicle,
- That's the point. I do not think that a large number multiplied by a large number yields an "infinite" number." I think that there is an infinite number of potential selves -- and, I'm trying to show why I think that.

 

[Tomboy]

Slowvehicle,
- That's the point. I do not think that a large number multiplied by a large number yields an "infinite" number." I think that there is an infinite number of potential selves -- and, I'm trying to show why I think that.

Hi. I've been reading along in this thread and trying to wrap my head around all of this. Can you remind me where these "selves" are coming from, again, please?

Edited to expand on what I'm thinking: Because there's a finite period of time that humanity will continue to exist, and therefore a finite number of sperm and ova and a finite number of potential human consciousnesses, so you're not talking about an infinite number of anything at all, unless I'm not understanding how you think these "selves" are originiating.

 

[trebor]

I think that there is an infinite number of potential selves

You are incorrect.
There is only a finite number of ways in which brains can be wired and developed. A very huge number for sure but finite.
This raises an important point in that the 'self' is not a single static thing.

-- and, I'm trying to show why I think that.

Seems like the reason for that one is that you wish it was so.

 

[Jabba]

Hi. I've been reading along in this thread and trying to wrap my head around all of this. Can you remind me where these "selves" are coming from, again, please?

Edited to expand on what I'm thinking: Because there's a finite period of time that humanity will continue to exist, and therefore a finite number of sperm and ova and a finite number of potential human consciousnesses, so you're not talking about an infinite number of anything at all, unless I'm not understanding how you think these "selves" are originiating.

Tomboy,
- Good to hear from you again.
- I have a couple of ways to (I think) logically support an infinity of potential "selves" -- but, actually communicating these ways may be next to impossible. So far, my wording hasn't struck any chords with anyone, and my wife needs some help with something, so I don't have time now to try some different wording. I'll probably have some time later this evening to give it a try. Pray for me.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Slowvehicle,
- That's the point. I do not think that a large number multiplied by a large number yields an "infinite" number." I think that there is an infinite number of potential selves -- and, I'm trying to show why I think that.

Mr. Savage:

At the risk of being accused of being condescending, let's review the last several pages, shall we?

In post #1595,
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9684943#post9684943
...you suggested (against the evidence that identical twins do not, in fact, share a consciousness), that two bodies could share the same "observer", and that the "observer" would be only one consciousness experiencing the events of both bodies.

In post #1597
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9684984#post9684984
...you claimed that any time a sperm and an egg came together, a "brand new self" is produced "out of thin air" (completely missing the point that this claim flatly contradicts your idea that the "self" is sequentially "immortal", or that the "self" is evidence of reincarnation).

In post #1599
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9685005#post9685005
...you reiterated your contention that you could "essentially prove" that the "self" is "immortal" (still without taking any steps at all to so prove).

In post #1604
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9685061#post9685061
...you flatly contradict the claim you made in #1597, stating that the "specificity of the self" does not depend upon the "specificity of the sperm and ovum"...but that, since every union of a sperm and an ovum produces a new "self", "out of thin air", this somehow demonstrates that there must be an "infinity" of potential selves.

I feel it is important to point out that not one of the claims you have made is supported by anything other than your wish that they were true (sounds a lot like your posts in Shroud^TM and Son of Shroud^TM, dunnit?).

At this point, evidently realizing that you had not even begun to support any of your claims, you decided to move on.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9685321#post9685321

In post #1618
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9686246#post9686246
...you claimed that the "thing" you are trying to talk about is the same "thing" that is "reincarnated". Oddly enough, you also claimed that this immortal, reincarnated "thing" was "expected to change totally" each time, yet still be the "same thing"--demonstrating that you do not understand the point of Theseus' Ship, Lincoln's Axe, Trigger's Broom, the Sugababes, and John Henry's Hammer).

In post #1630
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9687353#post9687353
...you claim that since you claim that the specificity of the "new self" is not, in fact, dependent in any way upon the specificity of the sperm and ovum, the union of which was the creation for the "new self"; the fact that the "new self" is created out of thin air simply by an ovum and a sperm coming together, means that there "should be" an "infinity" of potential selves. In other words:

-Finite number of sperm
-Finite number of ova
∴ finite number of combinations, but,
∴ infinite number of "potential selves".

I have to ask--did you really think you could get away with dealing your conclusion off the bottom of a deck you had stacked?

In post #1638
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9687632#post9687632
...you postulate the vast unlikelihood of a zygote being produced genetically identical to an extant zygote--then asked if the two zygotes would have the "same self".

In post #1641
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9687740#post9687740
...you claim that if those two identical zygotes did not have the "same self" (even though, earlier, you claimed they would "share a self"), then there must be an "infinite number" of "potential selves".
To repeat:

-Finite number of sperm
-Finite number of ova
∴ finite number of combinations, but,
∴ infinite number of "potential selves".

Which is, in fact, trying to produce, or reach, or get to, or derive, an infinite number by multiplying two finite numbers (you know, that thing you said you weren't doing...).

In post #1644
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9688532#post9688532
...you claimed that there was "no reason" that the string of clones could not be cloned "forever"...which is still trying to produce, or reach, or get to, or derive, an infinite number by multiplying two finite numbers (you know, that thing you said you weren't doing...).

In post #1649
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9689424#post9689424
and #1651
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9689711#post9689711
...you show your hand by trying to imply that the universe is not finite (as usual, without a shred of support).
...all of which simply ignores, or pretends to sidestep, the problem that if your postulated "selves" pre-existed humanity, and are supposed to exist after humanity is gone, they are not, by definition, "human" selves.

In post #1688
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9692283#post9692283
...you repeat your belief that multiplying two finite numbers results in an infinite number.

In post #1672
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9692625#post9692625
...you claim that you are not trying to produce an infinite number by repeating a finite process--leaving the impression that the number is, simply, infinite by fiat.

And yet, the causative agent of your "infinite number" of "potential new souls" is each union of a finite number of sperm with a finite number of ova.

How is that NOT

-Finite number of sperm
-Finite number of ova
∴ finite number of combinations, but,
∴ infinite number of "potential selves"?

Further, if each new self is unique, how do you wedge the superstition of reincarnation in there?

Not only that, how does a "new self" being produced every time a zygote is fructified have anything to do with "immortality"?

 

[Jabba]

Tomboy,
- Good to hear from you again.
- I have a couple of ways to (I think) logically support an infinity of potential "selves" -- but, actually communicating these ways may be next to impossible. So far, my wording hasn't struck any chords with anyone, and my wife needs some help with something, so I don't have time now to try some different wording. I'll probably have some time later this evening to give it a try. Pray for me.

Tomboy,
- One of my proposed explanations for why there should be an infinite number of potential selves, given the scientific model, is that the same sperm and ovum would not produce the same self -- that a certain biological situation produces the emergent property of consciousness, but with each new consciousness a brand new self is created ("out of thin air," so to speak).
- I'll be back.

 

[Jabba]

Tomboy,
- One of my proposed explanations for why there should be an infinite number of potential selves, given the scientific model, is that the same sperm and ovum would not produce the same self -- that a certain biological situation produces the emergent property of consciousness, but with each new consciousness a brand new self is created ("out of thin air," so to speak).
- I'll be back.

Tomboy,
- The other proposed explanation is that there are two kinds of relevant infinities: 1) "intrinsic" and 2) "extrinsic." I suspect that this distinction is made somewhere, but not using these terms -- so I haven't been able to find a reference.
- Anyway, #1 is sort of "theoretical" in that there is nothing intrinsic to the concept that makes it finite, but external situations might be able to.
- Gotta go.

 

[Humots]

Tomboy,
- One of my proposed explanations for why there should be an infinite number of potential selves, given the scientific model, is that the same sperm and ovum would not produce the same self -- that a certain biological situation produces the emergent property of consciousness, but with each new consciousness a brand new self is created ("out of thin air," so to speak).
- I'll be back.

I think I see what Jabba is getting at here. Not that I agree.

The non-Jabba view is that:

- Consciousness is an emergent property of a brain, and therefore the uniqueness of any consciousness is dependent on the structure of that brain.

- A brain is a physical object with a structure that in theory could be categorized by an extremely large (but still finite) number of factors, each of which have an extremely large (but still finite) number of possible values.

- This means that the number of possible brains is an EXTREMELY large (but still finite) number.

- Finally, if two brains are precisely identical in structure, they would give rise two identical consciousnesses. Note that they would still be two separate consciousnesses, not one.

What Jabba seems to be doing is ignoring all of this, and assuming that there are an infinite number of potential consciousnesses waiting out there somewhere, and every time a conception occurs a consciousness gets pulled off the shelf and installed.

He sees a consciousness as at least in some ways independent of its brain, so that two brains with identical structures could have different consciousnesses.

To me, this implies that he is really talking about a soul, not a consciousness.

 

[Humots]

Tomboy,
- The other proposed explanation is that there are two kinds of relevant infinities: 1) "intrinsic" and 2) "extrinsic." I suspect that this distinction is made somewhere, but not using these terms -- so I haven't been able to find a reference.
- Anyway, #1 is sort of "theoretical" in that there is nothing intrinsic to the concept that makes it finite, but external situations might be able to.
- Gotta go.

Jabba: without a reference, this is nothing more than speculation on your part.

Or worse: you heard it somewhere, but you don't remember where.